Do future bureaucrats punish more? The Effect of PSM and studying Public Administration on Contributions and Punishment in a Public Goods Game, International Public Management Journal (forthcoming), with Markus Tepe
This study tests the effect of PSM and studying public administration on subjects’ behavior in a repeated Public Goods Game with a costly option to punish free riders. Conducting the experiment on 136 students from three subject pools (public administration, social science and business science) shows the following: (1) PSM has a twofold effect, as compassion is associated with higher contributions and attraction to policy making is associated with punishing free riders. (2) Students of public administration do not contribute more than the other two student groups, but they are more likely to punish free riders. (3) Both, attraction to policy making and studying public administration, are associated with more severe behavior towards free riding, as these subjects punish even small amounts of free riding. Due to its implications for policy-implementation, it seems to be worthwhile to pay more attention to preferences of social norm enforcement when selecting public personnel.
I present a preliminary version of the study “On the Support for Equal Employment Opportunity Policies: The Effect of PSM, Political Attitudes, and Public Sector Work” (together with Michael Jankowski and Markus Tepe) which addresses the questions what drives attitudes towards EEO policies and which mechanisms lead to perceiving a trade-off between EEO policies and migrant-representation.
Thanks for organizing the PhD-Seminar “Hard questions about Public Service Motivation” to Gene A. Brewer, Adrian Ritz, and Wouter Vandenabeele and for the valuable discussions to all participants of this workshop.
I presented a preliminary version of the study “Who wants to jeopardize the merit principle? Evidence from an Issue Framing Experiment among Citizens and Future Bureaucrats” (together with Michael Jankowski and Markus Tepe) which addresses the question whether critics of Equal Employment Opportunity policies are correct by stating that supporters of these policies are willing to give up the merit principle in public hiring. We find a relationship between right-wing poltical attitudes and overemphasizing support for the merit principle when potential migrant discrimination is taken into account. The findings count for civic respondents as well as respondents with a public administration background.
Thanks to Gregg Van Ryzin and Sebastian Jilke from the School of Public Affairs and Administration, Rutgers University Newark/New Jersey,
USA, for inviting me to present recent work and to all participants for their fruitful comments on the paper.
Risk Attitudes, Gender, and Risk Behavior: Evidence from Two Laboratory Experiments, in Debus M., J. Sauermann, M. Tepe: Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 145-178
This study analyzes whether self-reported attitudes in economic risk taking predict experimentally revealed risk behavior, and how gender moderates the relationship between both measures. Prior research often finds women reporting higher risk averse attitudes than men and showing more risk averse behavior in observational or experimental studies. This study analyzes observations from 369 students who participated in two laboratory experiments and answered a survey about their risk preferences. The findings show that risk attitudes are not likely to predict risk behavior directly, but being female predicts risk averse behavior robustly. Most interestingly, the analyses show that in the experiments, women behave consistently to their self-reported risk attitudes, but men do not. Methodological and practical implications are briefly discussed.
Conducting a research stay at Rutgers’ School of Public Affairs and Administration, Newark/New Jersey (USA), from August to October 2018. I am very grateful to Sebastian Jilke for hosting me and to the DAAD for funding this stay.
Presenting joint work with Michael Jankowski and Markus Tepe titled “Discrimination in Public Hiring? Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment among Citizens and Future Bureaucrats” on the annual conference of the European Consortium of Political Research in Hamburg from 22.-25. August 2018.
Presenting recent work toward the behavioral consequences of self-reported risk attitudes on experimentally measured risk behavior and how this relationship is moderated by gender (“Risk attitudes, gender, and risk behavior: Evidence from two laboratory experiments”) at the annual meeting of the DVPW working group decision theory (AK Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheory) in Oldenburg/Germany from 31. May to 1. June 2018.
Are future bureaucrats more risk averse? The effect of studying public administration and PSM on risk preferences (with Markus Tepe)
This study tests the effect of studying public administration and self-reported Public Service Motivation (PSM) on risk preferences. We conduct a compound lottery choice experiment with monetary rewards to measure risk behavior and a post-experiment survey to measure risk attitudes and PSM on three student subject pools. Empirical findings suggest that: First, students of public administration consider themselves more risk averse, but they do not behave more risk averse in the compound lottery choice experiment than business sciences and law students. Second, self-reported PSM is positively associated with risk-averse behavior in the compound lottery choice experiment. Thus, contrary to the popular stereotypical description of bureaucratic behavior, there are no substantive differences in risk behavior among future bureaucrats compared to other student groups.
Presenting joint work with Michael Jankowski and Markus Tepe titled “Discrimination in Public Hiring? Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment among Citizens and Future Bureaucrats” on the annual conference of the Political Studies Association in Cardiff/Wales from 26.-28. March 2018.